Another showdown in Gaza?

Osama Al Sharif | osama@mediaarabia.com


Gaza is bracing itself for a harsh winter. Less than a week has passed since Israel slammed shut doors to all land crossings, leaving a million-and-half hapless Palestinians to a miserable fate. We have seen the images before; long queues at petrol stations, Gaza city engulfed in an eerie darkness, children huddled together around a kitchen table doing their homework and trying to make use of little light from a burning candle. And then there are the surprise commando incursions, the dead bodies of Palestinian activists arriving at badly maintained hospitals, the wailing and crying of women and children, the angry shouts of youths calling for revenge and the occasional firing of rockets from olive groves at nearby Israeli population centers. Gaza’s saga has become predictable and banal.

Israel’s collective punishment of millions of civilians in Gaza has become a normal event for the rest of the world. So much so that only a handful of Arab and international news media are following it. The plight of Gazans barely makes front-page headlines. Israel is politely reprimanded by the UN, but it doesn’t care. The Arab world is silent, busy with other things. The Palestinian National Authority ‘s response is timid, almost suspicious.

One is tempted to ask if there is collusion between senior Palestinian figures and the Israeli government. A few days ago outgoing Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Olmert announced that confrontation with Hamas, which controls the Strip, was inevitable. Hamas responded that the uneasy truce with Israel was about to collapse. Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, made direct threats. The truce is shattered, announces Olmert as he ordered his top military brass to prepare for a showdown with Gaza’s leaders. Again the world is silent.

The escalation comes in the wake of a failed Egyptian initiative to bring Palestinian factions to Cairo in an attempt to end the two-year-old rift between Hamas and the PNA. Palestinian president and Hamas leaders trade accusations. But the reconciliation meeting falls through and with it goes hopes of a Hamas-Israeli deal to release Gilad Shalit and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. It’s back to square one for all sides; but no one wants a stalemate.

Kicking Gazans where it hurts serves many sides. Israeli parties are preparing for early elections in February. Barak’s Labor party is trailing in the polls and is expected to suffer a historic defeat. Olmert, who will remain in power for a few more months, wants to appear tough, maybe to deflect attention from his personal troubles with the police, or to give his successor and head of Kadima party, Tzipi Levni, a much needed boost.

The PNA is in deep water. George Bush is leaving and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted few days ago that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian before the end of the year was now highly unlikely. With nothing to show, Mahmoud Abbas must find ways to justify his presence as head of the PNA after his term expires in January. And he must deal with internal dissent within the largest of Palestinian factions, Fatah, which is to hold its central committee meeting soon.

Hamas holds many keys and can, if it wants to, turn the tables on its main adversaries, both Palestinians and others. Somehow there is much to be gained from weakening, or, better still, destroying Hamas. That is Israel’s specialty. A small war in Gaza will do a lot to help Barak’s chances at the coming elections. It will also serve Livni’s interests as she aims at winning the votes of skeptical right-wing voters who had fled Likud and embraced Kadima.

Forcing Hamas to accept a deal on Shalit will also give Kadima an edge over Likud and its leader Benjamin Netanyahu. A broken Hamas will help Abbas overcome the many barriers that await him, inside Fatah, within the West Bank and in front of his international beneficiaries.

Aside from humanitarian organizations, no one really cares about what is happening to Gazans. The Egyptians are miffed at Hamas because of its refusal to attend the Cairo reconciliation meeting. They feel that they have used their good offices with all parties to their limit. That is why the Rafah crossing point, between Gaza and Egypt, remained closed last week.

Hamas is being punished for its policies, both past and present, and as it stands it has no allies. As bad as this seems to be, the fact remains that innocent Gazans are made to pay for Hamas’ judgments.

Hamas knows that it is facing a major threat. Israel has the upper hand if the latest showdown develops into an open military confrontation. If Israel invades Gaza it will be the third time it does so in 60 years. That may prove to be a big mistake for Israel, but then Tel Aviv is known for repeating past mistakes.

It did so in Lebanon before, in the West Bank and there is no reason to believe that it will not do it again in Gaza. The question is this: What next? Assuming that the Israeli Army will barge into the Strip, roll its tanks into Gaza City and hunt down Hamas’ leadership, what would that achieve?

It is an open question, but we can predict that such an action will not spell the end of Israel’s problems, nor will it secure Mahmoud Abbas an easy and trouble-free control over the occupied territories. And with the negotiations all but over, the Palestinian problem will nag on and on, regardless of the outcome of the current showdown with Hamas. Somehow, Israel, the US, the PNA and many others, including the Arabs, have been missing the point about how to end the oldest conflict in the region.

In the current scheme of things, there is little assurance that policies under consideration will make things better. Hamas may be at fault, but launching another military adventure will not solve matters. In fact, it will only thrust issues into the unknown.

Al-Qaeda No. 2 insults Obama

In global terror group's first reaction to US election results, Ayman al-Zawahri says president-elect a 'house negro, direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malcolm X'
Associated Press

Al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri criticized Barack Obama in the terror group's first reaction to his election, calling him a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites. The message appeared chiefly aimed at convincing Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in US policies. Al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.


Al-Zawahri also called Obama - along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice - "house negroes."


Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But English subtitles of his speech included in the message translate it as "house negroes."


The message also includes old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites.


The 11-minute 23-second video features the audio message by al-Zawahri, who appears only in a still image, along with other images, including one of Obama wearing a Jewish skullcap as he meets with Jewish leaders. In his speech, al-Zawahri refers to a Nov. 5 US airstrike attack in Afghanistan, meaning the video was made after that date.


'Admission of defeat in Iraq'

Al-Zawahri said Obama's election has not changed American policies he said are aimed at oppressing Muslims and others.


"America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always," the deputy of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden said.


He said Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.


"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them," he said.


Al-Zawahri did not threaten specific attacks, but warned Obama that he was "facing a Jihadi (holy war) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see."


He said Obama's victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George W. Bush's policies were a failure and that the result was an "admission of defeat in Iraq."


But Obama's professions of support for Israel during the election campaign "confirmed to the Ummah (Islamic world) that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims," al-Zawahri said.

SIMON MALLEY

Disoverthenetworks.rg

* Important figure in the Egyptian Communist Party
* Political journalist
* Founded the bimonthly journal Afrique Asie
* Pro-Soviet
* Passionately anti-Israel, anti-West
* Close friend of Yasser Arafat



A key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party, Simon Malley was born in May 1923 to a Syrian family in Cairo. After high school, he became a political journalist and was dispatched by an Egyptian newspaper to cover the United Nations in New York, where he met his wife, a native New Yorker named Barbara Silverstein. Simon Malley supported the 1952 revolution of Gamal Abdul Nasser, who would serve as Egyptian President from 1956 to 1970. Nasser appointed Malley to be the New York representative of the Egyptian daily newspaper Al Goumhouria.

According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley "participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] … wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations."

After immigrating to Paris in 1969, Malley co-founded (with his wife) the bimonthly journal Afrique Asie. This publication, whose readership of nearly 120,000 was based mostly in Africa and Latin America, supported various leftist revolutionary "liberation movements," particularly the Palestinian cause, as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to an October 4, 1980 New York Times report, Afrique-Asie commonly "criticized moderate African and Middle Eastern leadership and denounced Israel." An Associated Press report from that same period stated that the magazine also supported "the Cuban intervention in Angola and Ethiopia, the seizure of American hostages in Iran, the Algerian-backed guerrilla war in southern Morocco, and the Arab opposition to Israel and the [1978] Camp David agreements." By contrast, Malley, whose publishing enterprise was funded by the Soviet Union (as well as by Romania, Libya, and Algeria), passionately denounced "western imperialism."

In 1980 Simon Malley and his family were expelled from France for what French officials described as "political activities which do not correspond with, and even run contrary to, French interests in certain countries." An October 3, 1980 United Press International report stated: "[French] Interior Minister Christian Bonnet told the Assembly that some articles written by Malley were 'genuine appeals to murder foreign chiefs of state...'"

Among those to publicly protest the French government's expulsion order was Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat. According to Alex Safian, Associate Director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), Malley and his wife "were rabidly anti-Israel and counted Yasir Arafat as a personal friend." "Indeed," writes Safian, "Arafat was among those 'leaders' (for want of a better word) who intervened with the French government to readmit the Malley family to France after they had been expelled for their radical activities." Adds Ed Lasky: "Simon Malley loathed Israel and … spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat." According to Daniel Pipes, Malley was a sympathizer of the PLO during the height of its terrorism activities against the West.

With Francois Mitterrand's election as French President in 1981, the expulsion order against Simone Malley was lifted, and he returned with his family to France. He later resurrected his magazine, under the title Le Nouvel Afrique Asie, in which he published (in December 1989) a lengthy interview with Yasir Arafat. That same edition also featured a copy of Arafat's personal letter congratulating Malley on being permitted to return to his home.

Simon Malley died on September 7, 2006. His son, Robert Malley, formerly served as President Bill Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and is currently the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group.

Who is Rahm Emanuel?

John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | 11/19/2008

Two days after defeating John McCain, Barack Obama made his first appointmentas president-elect when he named 49-year-old Rahm Emanuel to be his chief ofstaff. Formerly an aide to Bill Clinton and currently the DemocraticRepresentative for Illinois’5th congressional district, Emanuel has suddenly become a figure of greatinterest to the American public.

Yet there has been much disagreement about where,on the political spectrum, his politics fall. Some critics have derided him asthe prototype of a partisan leftist. Others, such as ABC reporter ClaireShipman and CNN correspondent Frank Sesno, have characterized him,respectively, as “a pragmatic, centrist politician” and assomeone “on the center to center-right.” Whom are we tobelieve?The notion that Emanuel is a centrist emerged in 2006 when, to the dismay ofmany on the political Left, he recruited numerous moderate Democraticcandidates to run for election in Southern and Midwestern districts. Whileleft-wing partisans objected to the Democratic Party’s association with “reactionaries” like Jim Webb, the Marine veteranand current Virginia Senator, Emanuel understood that doctrinaire leftistsstood little chance of winning in these traditionally conservative enclaves.Emanuel’s shrewd strategy ultimately enabled Democrats to gain a whopping 30congressional seats in 2006, and thereby to seize control of the House ofRepresentatives.

But is this sufficient proof of Emanuel’s centrism? After all, it canreasonably be argued that Emanuel’s tactic of hand-picking Democratic moderateswas merely the first step in a long-term bait-and-switch strategy where suchindividuals, once elected, could gradually be pressured by the party hierarchyto either drift leftward or surrender their positions to more liberalcandidates.

There is only one reliable way to settle the question of whether Rahm Emanuelshould be defined as a leftist or as a centrist. We must look carefully at thevoting record he has compiled—on an array of vital issues—during his six yearsin Congress.

Consider, for starters, Emanuel’s position on taxes, where his voting recordhas been overwhelmingly on the side of higher tax rates. In May 2003 hevoted against a $350 billion tax cut which contained, among other things, aprovision to eliminate the so-called “marriage tax penalty.” A year later, he voted against a proposal toextend the alternative minimum tax relief that had been available in 2003 and2004. Also in May 2004, he voted against a proposal to makethe $1,000-per-child tax credit permanent rather than letting it decline. Four months later he voted against another bill callingfor a five-year extension on the $1,000 child tax credit.

In October 2004 Emanuelvoted against a ten-year, $145 billion tax cut for domestic manufacturers andsmall corporations. In April 2005 hevoted against a proposal to permanently repeal the estate tax. In November 2005 hevoted against a bill calling for a $49.91 billion reduction in federal spendingover a five-year period. Twelve months later he voted against a similar five-yearproposal for $56.1 billion in federal spending reductions; that bill alsocalled for the retention of a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

In May 2006 Emanuelvoted against $69.96 billion in tax cuts and credits through 2010, including reductionsof capital gains taxes and dividends taxes. The following month, he voted against aproposal to reduce estate taxes beginning in 2010. The most notable exceptionto Emanuel’s generally across-the-board espousal of higher taxation occurred in January 2008, when he supported a bill givingsingle taxpayers a credit of up to $600, and joint filers a credit of up to$1,200.

Unsurprisingly, organizations that lobby in favor of lower taxes and smallergovernment are uniformly unimpressed by Emanuel’s legislative record. Americans for Tax Reform gives him a score of 5 percent; The National Tax Limitation Committee rates him at 6 percent. FreedomWorks,which “fights for lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for allAmericans,” is slightly more generous: 10 percent. The National Taxpayers Union gives him a grade of F.

On energy-related issues, Emanuel has consistently rejected proposals thatwould allow the U.S.to harness its own natural reserves of fossil fuels. In May 2006, for instance, he voted against aproposal to provide funds for offshore oil exploration along the OuterContinental Shelf. Instead, he favored a continuation of President Clinton’s 1998 moratorium on oil drilling. In October 2005 andJune 2006, Emanuel voted against theconstruction of new oil refineries.

Emanuel’s positions on the war on terror and national security are also worthyof note. In September 2006 he voted against a bill authorizingthe President to establish military commissions to try enemy combatantscaptured in the war on terror. In Emanuel’s view, such tribunals trample on thecivil rights and liberties of defendants who presumably should be entitled toall the rights and protections afforded by the American criminal courtsystem—where the standards that govern the admissibility of evidence areconsiderably stricter than the counterpart standards in military tribunals.

In September 2006 Emanuel voted against an amendment tothe Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978; this amendment calledfor permitting the government to use electronic surveillance to investigatesuspected terrorist operatives. In May 2007 hevoted in favor of a proposal to expedite the transfer of all prisonerscurrently being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, most of whom are,as Gordon Cucullu wrote in The American Enterprise, “notinnocent foot soldiers” but rather “Islamic fundamentalists from across theMiddle East, rabid jihadists who have dedicated their lives to the destructionof America and Western civilization.”

In August 2007 Emanuelvoted against a bill authorizing the Director of National Intelligence and theAttorney General to monitor suspected terrorists’ foreign electroniccommunications that are routed through the United States. In June 2008 hevoted in favor of a bill specifically prohibiting this type of surveillance.

It should be pointed out that in July 2005 Emanueldid cast one notable vote in favor of enhanced national security measures: hesupported reauthorization of the post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation known asthe Patriot Act. But overall, Emanuel hasdisappointed advocates of strengthening national security measures in the waron terror. The Center for Security Policy, which is committedto “promoting international peace through American strength,” has rated him variously between 17 percent and 35 percent. The American Security Council, which “serves aseducational secretariat of the Congressional Caucus on National Security,”gives him a mere 10 percent rating.

It does not exaggerate Emanuel’s positions on the Iraq War to say that theyhave generally fallen under the category of surrender. In June 2006 hevoted against a resolution stating that it was against America’s nationalsecurity interest to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of its troopsfrom Iraq, and that a better course of action would be to withdraw the troopsonly upon the “completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure andunited Iraq.” In February 2007 he voted against the so-called troop“surge”—the deployment of some 21,500 additional U.S.soldiers in an effort to quell the violent insurgents in Iraq. In May 2007 hevoted in favor of an amendment to withdraw U.S.troops from Iraqwithin 90 days. Two months later, he voted to begindramatically reducing the presence of U.S.troops in Iraqby April 1, 2008.

Emmanuel again found himself in the Left’s good graces in June 2008, when he voted in favor of exploringthe possibility of impeaching President Bush on grounds that he allegedly hadmisrepresented U.S.intelligence on Iraqso as to justify the March 2003 American invasion.

On the subject of illegal immigration, Emanuel has done little to inspireconfidence that he will place a premium on guarding America’s borders with anythingmore than hollow rhetoric. In May 2004 hevoted “No” on requiring hospitals to report (to the federal government) illegalaliens who receive emergency medical treatment. In February 2005 hevoted against the Real ID Act, which proposed to set minimal securityrequirements for state driver licenses and identification cards.

In December 2005 hevoted against a bill calling for, among other provisions, the construction ofsome 700 miles of fencing along America’s southern border; the establishment ofa system requiring business owners to verify the legal status of all theiremployees; the detention of any person attempting to enter the U.S. illegallyafter October 1, 2006; an increase in the penalties on anyone attempting tosmuggle illegal aliens into the U.S.; the annual provision of $250 million topay state and local police agencies for their assistance in enforcing federalimmigration laws; and funding for a program mandating that “removable criminalaliens” in prison be deported following the completion of their prisonsentences, rather than be released into American communities. The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposesthe foregoing provisions, has given Emanuel a perfect grade of 100 percent.

In June 2006 Emanuelvoted in favor of an amendment prohibiting the U.S. government from tipping offMexican officials as to the whereabouts of operatives working for the MinutemanProject, a nonviolent organization of American citizens who alert the U.S.Border Patrol to the presence of unauthorized border-crossers in theSouthwestern states.

In September 2006 Emanuel again voted against a billauthorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing between theU.S. and Mexico. That same month, he also voted against aproposal to grant state and local officials the authority to investigate,identify, and arrest illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Border Control, which is “is dedicated toending illegal immigration by securing our nation’s borders and reforming ourimmigration policies,” gives Emanuel a rating of 8 percent. The Federation for American Immigration Reform,which “seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and topromote immigration levels consistent with the national interest,” rates him anunequivocal zero. By contrast, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, whichfavors open borders and an expansion of rights and liberties for illegalaliens, gives Emanuel a 100 percent rating.

It is instructive also to note that in September 2007 Emanuel voted in favor of a billcalling on money lenders “to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reachunderserved borrowers.” In effect, this bill endorsed the issuance of subprimeloans to under-capitalized borrowers—the very practice that eventually wouldlead to the cataclysmic collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgageindustry. Emanuel, incidentally, had served onthe Freddie Mac board from 2000 to 2001, during which time the mortgage giantwas plagued bysuch major scandals as accounting fraud and illegal campaign contributions tocongressional candidates. It is hardly surprising that Emanuel has received a 100 percent ratingfrom ACORN, the notorious activist group that formany years has played a major role in pressuring banks to make subprimeloans—to say nothing of its involvement in campaigns of voter-registrationfraud.

Next, consider Emanuel’s record on abortion and the rights of the unborn. Onthis issue, too, his alleged centrism is nowhere in evidence On three separate occasions, he voted against legislation thatwould have banned the late-term procedure commonly known as partial-birthabortion. The controversial practice, in which the doctor makes an incision atthe base of the baby’s skull and then vacuums the brain out with a suctioncatheter, was banned under a 2003 federal law, which was upheld by the SupremeCourt in 2007. Bill Frist, the former Senate majority leader and himself apracticing surgeon has called the procedure “barbaric.”
In February 2004 Emanuelvoted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which proposed to make it anadded criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying outa crime against a pregnant woman. Twice Emanuel voted againstthe Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, whose purpose was to prohibitthe transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion withouta parent’s (or a legal guardian’s) consent. In December 2006 Emanuelvoted against the Abortion Pain Bill, which mandated that abortion providers,prior to performing an abortion on a fetus older than 20 weeks, inform themother that the fetus might feel pain during the procedure, and that the use ofsome pain-reducing drugs may have health risks associated with them.

As a result of his unwavering support for abortion-on-demand, Emanuel hasconsistently received ratings of 100 percent from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. These ratings indicate thatEmanuel’s votes and stated positions on abortion-related matters have mirrored,literally without exception, the positions of these organizations. Indeed, since at least 1995 Emanuel has supported the agendas ofPlanned Parenthood fully 100 percent of the time.

Finally, note Emanuel’s stance on gay marriage. In September 2004 he voted against a bill that wouldhave prohibited same-sex marriage, and in July 2006 hevoted against a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in Americaexclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

By all accounts, Rahm Emmanuel is a savvy political operator. But if his votingrecord is anything to go by, a penchant for centrist accommodation is not amongthe talents he will bring to his new role as White House chief of staff. John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com

PA Using Media for Saudi Plan

Maayana Miskin PA Using Media for Saudi Plan

The Palestinian Authority will promote the Saudi Plan in a series of full-page advertisements to be displayed in Hebrew language newspapers in Israel beginning on Thursday. The program, which includes allowing millions of foreign Arabs to move to Israel, will put PA ads in Israeli papers for the first time in history.

The project is being coordinated by MK Ahmed Tibi, who also is translating the Saudi Plan from Arabic to Hebrew. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas decided to run the ads because he feels Israelis have not given the Saudi Plan the consideration it deserves, MK Tibi explained. “Abu Mazen [Abbas's terrorist nickname—ed believes that this initiative is the best method to solve the conflict, and he thinks that up to this point the Israeli public and Israeli politics have not been given a chance to truly understand the initiative."

Abbas believes that more Israelis will support the Saudi initiative if they have a chance to read it, according to MK Tibi, who added that "this is an historic opportunity." The advertisements will be “a big first step, but not the last step” in the PA's attempts to promote the initiative, he said.

The ads will be titled “The Arab Peace Initiative,” with the subtitle, “Full relations and diplomatic ties between Israel and 57 Arab and Muslim states in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement and a full end to the occupation.” Tibi hopes to run the ad in Yediot Acharonot, Maariv, Haaretz and Yisrael HaYom.

The ad will also include quotes from Saudi Prince Abdullah calling for “a full Israel withdrawal from all Arab territories conquered in 1967” and promising “normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel, by convincing Arab states that a military solution to the conflict will not bring peace or security.”

Under the Saudi Plan, Israel would be required to give away the Golan Heights, all of Judea, Samaria and most if not all of eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount. Israel would not be allowed to maintain sovereignty over densely populated areas in Judea and Samaria, and would be required to remove more than 300,000 Israeli citizens living in the area.

Israel would also be required to find “a solution” for millions of foreign Arabs claiming descent from those who fled the country during the War of Independence. Israeli supporters of the plan say the clause would allow Israel to reach peace without accepting the foreign Arabs as citizens. However, groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and many of the foreign Arabs themselves, say they are willing to accept nothing less than residence in Israel and full citizenship.

The Saudi Plan has received praise from President Shimon Peres, although he said he does not support the plan as is but believes it to be a good starting point for negotiations.

IDF Contradicts Olmert

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu IDF Contradicts Olmert

Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert misled the government and the public by claiming that he is waiting for the IDF to make recommendations before acting against rocket and mortar attacks on Israel, according to an IDF statement that contradicted Olmert's statement to the Cabinet. Olmert told the Cabinet Sunday, "Following last week's Cabinet discussion...that I held this past Friday with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and senior defense establishment officials, I have instructed the latter to submit to me – as soon as possible – their proposals for formulating an action plan…to restore full quiet in the South."

However, Channel Two television quoted military sources as saying, "We already gave Olmert the plans - it is now up to him to decide."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the caretaker Prime Minister have stated several times the past two years that a military clash with Hamas is only a "matter of time" and that the IDF has the necessary means to respond according to government decisions.

"What plans does the Prime Minister mean--the ones we presented to him two weeks ago or the ones we saw a month ago?" one officer told the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz. "All of the operational plans regarding Gaza were presented to the cabinet and the security cabinet a long time ago."

Olmert also maintained before the Cabinet Sunday, "I know that tempers are rising and various voices are being heard. My Government has always acted, in such situations, with equanimity and sagacity."

Following another day of attacks that have returned the western Negev and Ashkelon to a daily routine of fear and panic, the Likud and Israel Is Our Home (Yisrael Beiteinu) parties collected enough signatures on Tuesday to force a special recess session next week to discuss the issue.

More than a dozen attacks were reported on Monday, including Kassam rockets that exploded six feet from a Kibbutz home and damaged greenhouses.

As of Tuesday night, more than half a dozen attacks were reported in the Western Negev, none of them causing any damage or serious injuries.

PA: 'Hamas is staging Gaza blackouts'

Nov. 19, 2008
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST

Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah accused Hamas on Tuesday of staging the latest blackouts in the Gaza Strip in a bid to win sympathy and incite the Palestinian public against Israel and the PA.

The officials said that contrary to Hamas's claim, there is no shortage of basic goods, medicine and fuel in the Gaza Strip, largely thanks to the many underground tunnels along the border with Egypt. This is not the first time that Palestinians have accused Hamas of staging Gaza blackouts under the pretext that Israel had cut off fuel supplies to the district's power grid.

Earlier this year, Palestinian journalists in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post that scenes of Palestinian children and women holding lit candles in the dark had been staged by Hamas and some Arab satellite TV stations.

"There's no shortage of fuel in the Gaza Strip and the Electricity Company is continuing to function normally," said a PA official. "Our people in the Gaza Strip have told us that the blackouts are all staged as part of the Hamas propaganda."

Another PA official noted that Hamas's lies reached their peak last January when its legislators held a meeting in a darkened hall of the Palestinian Legislative Council - while light could be seen coming in through the curtained windows.

The official accused Al-Jazeera of serving as a platform for Hamas's propaganda machine by airing staged footage of children and women during candlelight protests in the streets of Gaza City.

"There's enough fuel in the Gaza Strip," he said. "Even when Israel reduces the fuel supplies, Hamas continues to smuggle tens of thousands of liters through the underground tunnels."

The Fatah-controlled Pal-Press Web site on Thursday quoted a senior official in the Gaza Electricity Company as saying that Hamas has been stealing fuel supplies intended for the power grid.

The official, who asked not to be identified, also denied claims by Hamas and Al-Jazeera about power outages in large parts of the Gaza Strip. He noted that 70% of the Gaza Strip's electricity came from Israel and Egypt, while the remaining 30% were being supplied by the local company.

"Hamas has seized more than 220,000 liters of fuel that was intended for generators belonging to our company," he revealed. "There's no shortage of fuel and as such there is no reason for a crisis."

The official also disclosed that Hamas militiamen had been forcing the company to cut off power supplies to some areas in the Gaza Strip so as to create the impression that the outage was due to a lack of fuel caused by the ongoing closure of the border crossings.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404771503&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel outraged at UN remarks urging end to Gaza blockade

Barak Ravid and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents and News Agencies

Israel reacted angrily to comments made Tuesday by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, in which she called for an immediate end to its blockade of the Gaza Strip, which she said breached international and humanitarian law In a statement from her Geneva-based office, Pillay urged Israel to allow the flow of aid including food, medicines and fuel to resume, and to restore electricity and water services in the Hamas-controlled territory.

Pillay was also quoted as saying that 1.5 million Palestinian men, women and children have been forcibly deprived of their most basic human rights for months.

She also called for Israel to end airstrikes and incursions in Gaza, and for Palestinian militants to stop firing rockets into Israel.

Israel imposed a blockade of Gaza after the Islamic group Hamas violently seized control of the territory in June 2006. It recently tightened the sanctions because of rocket fire at Israeli towns.

Pillay's demands provoked an angry response from Israel's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, who accused her of being utterly shortsighted and repeating blatant misinformation.

"Overall responsibility for the situation in the Gaza Strip lies with Hamas, which invests all of its resources in arms and terrorism instead of providing for the civilians that it brutally controls," Aharon Leshno-Yaar said, adding that Palestinian groups had fired more 170 rockets and mortars at Israel during the past 10 days.

Leshno-Yaar also rejected Pillay's claim that Israel has cut off essential supplies to Gaza.

"Electricity and water continue to flow from Israel to Gaza, and 33 trucks laden with supplies arrived in Gaza yesterday, with more waiting to enter as soon as Hamas ends its violent attacks," he said.

Earlier Tuesday, Israel resealed border crossings with the Gaza Strip, citing continued rocket fire at its towns, despite warnings from world aid groups of looming shortages of food and fuel supplies in the coastal territory.

Israel had allowed supplies into Gaza for the first time in two weeks on Monday, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert assured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas he would not permit a humanitarian crisis to develop there.

"The crossings are shut because of ongoing rocket fire," Peter Lerner, a defense spokesman said, referring to several barrages of rockets fired from Gaza on Monday that slammed into Israeli towns, causing no injury.

International aid groups said the supplies sent in on Monday were not enough to alleviate food shortages.

Israel has also held up fuel shipments to Gaza's main power plant, leading to daily periodic electricity blackouts for many of 1.5 million Palestinians living in the territory.

Israel had not allowed UNRWA, a United Nations agency that aids some 750,000 refugees in Gaza, to bring in supplies since Nov. 4 during cross-border fighting in which more than a dozen Palestinian militants were killed.

Several Israelis have been lightly wounded by dozens of rockets fired by gunmen after the Israel Defense Forces raids.

Palestinians: IDF tanks roll into the southern Gaza Strip

IDF tanks forged into the southern Gaza Strip on Tuesday, drawing rocket and mortar fire from Palestinian militants, militant groups said, intensifying violence that has chipped away at a tenuous cease-fire.

Israel and Hamas have been trading fire for two weeks after nearly five months of relative quiet. The June 19 truce is due to expire next month, and both sides might be trying to dictate more favorable terms in anticipation of the agreement's renewal.

The tanks, backed by a bulldozer and military jeep, rumbled about a half a kilometer deep into the tiny seaside strip, residents and Gaza security officials said. Residents said they leveled lands along the border east of the city of Rafah. It was the first ground action in a week.

The IDF described the activity as a routine operation to uncover
explosive devices near the border fence in the southern Gaza Strip. It said two mortars were fired at troops, causing no injuries or damage.

The tanks did not respond to the Palestinian fire.

By the army's count, militants have fired more than 140 rockets and mortars at Israel since the truce began unraveling.

At least 17 militants have been killed over the past two weeks, and Israel in an effort to squelch the rocket fire, has kept cargo crossings into Gaza clamped shut for the most part, drastically restricting vital supplies.

Both Israel and leaders of Gaza's ruling Islamic militant Hamas movement have said they hoped the Egyptian-brokered truce could be preserved. But a small, Hamas-allied group said they consider the truce to have broken down, and Israel has threatened to hit hard if the rocket fire persists.

On Tuesday, a spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry accused Israel of subverting the truce.

"We call on the Palestinian factions to meet to begin an immediate re-evaluation of the calm," spokesman Ihab al-Ghussein said.

"Picking Up"

For nine days I have been away from my computer, celebrating my Mom's 90th with family in MA. I returned today to learn that my computer will be out of commission for half of tomorrow. And so, I begin here with a brief run-down of various events, with more to follow soon. When last I wrote, I reported on the November 5th mission of Robert Malley to Cairo and Damascus on behalf of president- elect Obama. He delivered a message, according to Middle East Newsline, of Obama's readiness to be more responsive to Egypt's and Syria's concerns.

This alone is unsettling, but must be followed by additional information: Malley had been an advisor to Obama until last May. But when Malley not only recommended that Hamas be dealt with directly but told The Times that he himself had had regular meeting with Hamas, it caused a furor. Thus it was announced that Obama had distanced himself from Malley, who would no longer serve an advisory function. Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, said then that Malley "has no formal role in the campaign and will not play any role in the future." (emphasis added)

But here he is now, serving on behalf of Obama. Questions -- serious questions -- are being raised about Obama's integrity in this regard. It should be noted that Malley's father Simon was of Syrian extraction, but lived in Egypt; he was passionately anti-Israel. This makes son Robert an ideal person to deliver conciliatory messages to Syrian and Egypt, and sheds light on the direction in which Obama may be going.

~~~~~~~~~~

Regardless of Obama's actual position regarding matters in the Middle East, perceptions also matter. From various sources I am picking up concerns that the Arab world -- rightly or wrongly -- sees Obama as being in their pocket. This perception can have serious implications, and I will be following this closely.

From one very knowledgeable source, we have this: "...the Muslim world -- from Iran to Libya -- regards President-elect Obama as its own. Even Al Qaida quietly sees Obama as a tool in Islamic expansionism."

From an Obama aide we have a statement regarding Obama's support for the Saudi "peace" plan, which calls for Israeli pull-back to pre-67 lines.

~~~~~~~~~~

Also to be watched closely is the situation with regard to an escalating number of rocket attacks -- with both Kassams and more dangerous Katyushas -- on Sderot and neighboring areas from Gaza.

Tzipi Livni says that this situation represents a "fundamental violation" of the "ceasefire." What she doesn't acknowledge is that there IS no ceasefire. If the attacks continue, she declared, a response that would be "harsh and painful" would follow.

This is difficult for me to report on, because what is going on is not tolerable, not something any sovereign nation should tolerate. That "harsh and painful" response is long overdue.

Ehud Olmert talks about pressure on Hamas via keeping crossings closed. Hamas fights back here with PR that fallaciously represents the people of Gaza as enduring inhumane conditions. The fact is that humanitarian supplies are always allowed in, but the world buys into the Hamas version of events quite readily.

And Ehud Barak? He has cautioned that we should not get "carried away" because the "ceasefire" is in our best interest. Said he: "...if the Gaza factions want to resume the truce, we will consider it in a positive light." We're talking about more than "resumption" actually -- we're looking at the possibility of "renewal," as the original terms are about to expire.

~~~~~~~~~~

Here is the heart of the problem: At the Sunday Cabinet meeting, Olmert declared: "The responsibility for breaking the calm and creating a situation of recurrent continuing violence in he South lies entirely with Hamas...Let no party come to the government of Israel and claim otherwise..."

See, world, he is saying, ever so defensively, we have a right to respond, because they're the bad ones. "They started it," as it were. The catch is that even if they weren't "breaking the ceasefire," we would have a right to pre-emptive action because of the incredible strengthening of weapons and troops Hamas is carrying on inside of Gaza.

An Israeli airstrike on a launching area on Sunday killed four gunmen.

~~~~~~~~~~

An issue to be watched and explored: Who is calling the shots now, Livni or a very lame-duck Olmert? This is in regard, in particular, to the negotiations with the PA. How much weight do Olmert statements have, when Livni is on a different wave length? And to what degree will the world, and most particularly the Quartet, attempt to hold us to injudicious Olmert statements, such as a recent one stating that we really must withdraw to close to the pre-67 lines?

What undercuts Olmert most are the declarations by Abbas (this is not new) that what Olmert proposes is insufficient. Abbas still insists they must have it all.

~~~~~~~~~~

Moshe Ya'alon -- former IDF Chief of Staff fired by Sharon for his outspoken stance against the disengagement, and currently a senior distinguished fellow at the Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies -- has announced that he will be running for the Knesset with the Likud.

His readiness to become politically active is most welcome, and his addition to the Likud roster confers even greater strength on the party.

~~~~~~~~~~

From the inside, just yesterday, I learned that there is enormous discontent with Ehud Barak, head of Labor, from within the Labor party.

~~~~~~~~~~

Jerusalem mayor-elect, Nir Barkat, a secular business, promises to bring Jerusalem a new dynamism. It is to be fervently hoped so.

~~~~~~~~~~

Potential Obama Appointees Face Extensive Vetting

Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 18, 2008; A12

There was a time when smoking marijuana during college threatened your hopes of landing a top presidential appointment. Then came the nanny questions: Are your domestic workers legal? Did you pay their employment taxes?

Now, as President-elect Barack Obama assembles his administration, an army of lawyers volunteering on his transition team are vetting his potential picks with unprecedented scrutiny of their personal, financial and professional backgrounds.

Embarrassing e-mails, text messages, diary entries and Facebook profiles? Gifts worth more than $50, other than those from relatives and long-standing friends? Family members with connections to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG or any other company receiving a federal bailout? Obama is conducting the vetting process much the way he managed his campaign: methodically, thoroughly and on a prodigious scale. He did not wait until he won the election to vet his favored picks. Soon after he clinched the Democratic nomination, lawyers quietly prepared dossiers of about 150 contenders for senior positions -- often without the candidates themselves knowing -- said a senior Obama transition adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"You start with public sources: You go on Google, Nexis and other public record databases," the adviser said.

Now Obama is asking contenders to complete a far-reaching questionnaire and furnish detailed personal and financial records dating back a decade.

"Now you're going to the next level and really trying to understand if there are any potential issues in nominating and confirming this person for the job," the adviser said. "The real purpose of vetting is to understand the person's ability to perform the job and be confirmed for the position. We also want to avoid surprises."

The vetting process extends beyond a 63-item questionnaire Obama is requiring of top candidates. For the roughly 800 executive posts that require Senate confirmation, nominees must undergo an FBI background check and file records with the Office of Government Ethics.

For the president-elect, vetting candidates and selecting nominees is his first test of leadership, said Dina Habib Powell, a former director of presidential personnel in the Bush White House.

"The decisions that [Obama] makes in appointing individuals to serve in these critical roles will have an impact on his entire presidency," Powell said.

Obama's scrutiny is so intense that some top candidates hired personal attorneys in the spring and summer to "pre-vet" them in advance of submitting information to Obama's team. The lawyers scoured tax returns for any errors or details that could jeopardize their chances, said a Washington lawyer who is involved in Obama's vetting process and played a similar role for President Bill Clinton's transition.

"Sometimes they will have us go through their tax return and say, 'I did X, Y and Z, my accountant recommended it, but do you think that was kosher? Do you think that would raise red flags?' " said the lawyer, who has pre-vetted some clients and agreed to describe the process only if he and his clients would not be identified.

"It has become a nightmare," E. Pendleton James, who managed personnel for President Ronald Reagan's transition, said of the questionnaire. "I don't know how anybody with some self-esteem can subject themselves to all of these questionnaires. . . . Every candidate who fills out the form is deathly afraid of making a mistake. If he or she does make an innocent mistake, that can be used as a political weapon in the confirmation process to question your integrity."

Inquiries into candidates' backgrounds grow deeper as each administration's scandals add new thresholds. In the 1980s, a history of marijuana use killed some nominations. During the past decade, scandals about domestic workers clouded transitions. Clinton's nominee for attorney general, Zoe Baird, withdrew from consideration when it became public that she and her husband had hired a Peruvian couple living in the country illegally as a babysitter and chauffeur. Eight years later, Bush's nominee for secretary of labor, Linda Chavez, withdrew after she was found to have provided haven to an illegal immigrant from Guatemala.

Obama's questionnaire has four questions about domestic workers.

"If you looked at the questionnaires that they used back in 1976 and 1980, they would be very tiny compared to this questionnaire," said Michael S. Berman, a lawyer and lobbyist who worked on the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton transitions. "Over time, in each transition, whether Democratic or Republican, some new issue will arise, some question that hasn't been asked before that causes consternation, so you simply add that in."

Personal information obtained through the vetting process does not automatically disqualify a candidate from a political appointment, but the transition team uses the information to judge a person's fitness for the office and likelihood of being confirmed.

The questionnaire does not directly ask about drug use -- which Obama himself admitted to in his 1995 memoir -- but it includes a question seeking any information that would be "a possible source of embarrassment."

Some officials who vetted nominees for previous administrations said Obama's standards are so onerous he risks turning away the best candidates.

"It takes major talent to do this work," said a senior Pentagon official who has worked on transitions for four Republican presidents. "With two wars going on and several major acquisition programs, they need the best people they can find in the Untied States today, and you've got to be careful not to be so stringent that you eliminate those people. If you get too difficult, people will say, 'No, thank you.' "

For vetters, there is a mantra: "Vetters never think that no one else will find something out," the Obama adviser said. "We know that if we found it, someone else will find it."

Tom C. Korologos, a D.C. lobbyist and former ambassador to Belgium, has vetted and prepared more than 300 nominees for confirmation hearings, beginning during President Richard M. Nixon's transition. He begins each session by asking the candidate a simple question:

"What is there in your background that you have done that's going to come up in the hearing and embarrass the president and embarrass you? I'm not telling you to tell me what it is. What I'm telling you is to get the answer in your head, because it's going to come up."

When Korologos vetted Nelson Rockefeller before his selection as President Gerald R. Ford's vice president, Rockefeller was reluctant to make his financial history public.

" 'I've got something to worry about,' " Korologos recalled Rockefeller telling him.

"His concern was that when it became public, he wasn't going to be as rich as everybody thought he was," Korologos said. "He was going to be embarrassed among his peers that he didn't have all the billions people thought."

To prepare Donald H. Rumsfeld for his confirmation hearing to become defense secretary, Korologos held a "murder board."

"I'd ask the rottenest questions in the world," Korologos said. "My goal was to have him at the end say, 'You [expletive], you were much harder on me than the committee was.' "


© 2008 The Washington Post Company
Ads by Google

No wonder we’re losing

When will our legal advisors realize we are at war with Hamas?

Alex Fishman


This country has decided to commit suicide. Our defense minister sits and waits for the attorney general to give him a permit to order the IDF to fire artillery at Gaza Strip launch sites. If this isn’t delusional, what is? Several months ago already, the defense minister asked attorneys to look into the question of renewing artillery fire at the Strip. Back then already the lawyers told him it won’t work; we are dealing with fire at populated areas, which borders on war crimes. They told him that IDF officers will not be able to enter any European Union country as a result.


Now, following the latest round of fire at Sderot and Ashkelon, at the end of security consultations, the defense minister again turned to the lawyers to examine the possible responses vis-à-vis Gaza. The High Court of Justice forbids deliberate power outages in the Strip, we have to transfer food into Gaza, and artillery fire is still banned. So is it any wonder that Hamas is teaching us a lesson?


In recent days Hamas explained to us exactly what the limits are, and what’s the price we shall pay for every military operation. When the IDF operated against the borderline tunnel about two weeks ago, Hamas directed fire at open areas. Meanwhile, it also turned a blind eye to Qassam attacks by Islamic Jihad and by the Popular Resistance Committees.


However, last Thursday, when the IDF killed four Hamas gunmen who approached the fence, Hamas declared that we went too far. For this, it said, you will pay dearly. At that stage, Grad missiles were fired at Ashkelon and Qassam rockets were fired at Sderot in an orderly and deliberate fashion. This was a very grave attack which no sovereign state would ignore. A disaster was only averted by miracle.


‘Illegitimate violations’

In order for us to clearly understand the message, a Hamas spokesman explained: This is the price Israel shall be paying for “illegitimate violations” of the lull agreement. He also added commentary implying that the State of Israel understood Hamas’ message and is therefore no longer responding.


At this time, it appears both sides are trying to take a step back. In the ongoing dispute within Hamas it appears that the pragmatic branch is still stronger than the militant group. Therefore, even after two Popular Resistance Committees’ members were killed Saturday in a “work accident,” no rockets were directed at Israel. Now, Hamas is waiting to see whether Israel indeed internalized the lesson.


The Hamas too understands that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is traveling to United States this week, that he is scheduled to meet Mahmoud Abbas this week, and that Israeli officials are trying to find a way to calm the situation. Hamas can certainly assume that next time a cell approaches the fence or that another underground tunnel dug to carry out an attack is exposed, Israel will think 10 times before responding.


And what if Israel didn’t get it? That’s not too bad either. In any case, Hamas is going to dismantle the lull agreement in its current format. Perhaps then our lawyers will realize we’re at war.

Latest PR gimmick:PA to publish ads in Israeli media

Ads detailing principles of Arab peace initiative aimed at informing Israeli public of possible path for peace ahead of general elections
Ali Waked

The Palestinian Authority will try to influence public opinion in Israel ahead of the general elections in February by publishing advertisements in Israeli newspapers. The ads, which outline the Saudi peace plan, will appear in the papers as of this Thursday. This is the first time that the PA is using this channel to communicate with the Israeli public. A source said that similar ads will be published in American and European newspapers as well.



The Saudi peace plan, which was adopted by the Arab League Summit in 2003, calls for a comprehensive peace agreement and the establishment of full diplomatic ties between Israel and the Arab world, in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders.


'Best mechanism for resolving conflict'

The decision to run the ads was made following long deliberations between senior Palestinian leaders and Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al.) Tibi, who is considered in the PA an expert on Israeli media, was chosen to promote the project vis-a-vis the press.



"This is the first time that something like this is being done. The Palestinian Authority is saying to the Israeli public through these ads – please read the details of the Arab peace initiative thoroughly, this is an opportunity you can't afford to miss," Tibi said on Tuesday.



In the ad, which is signed by "the PLO's Negotiations Team," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ask to present to Israelis the main principles of the peace plan.



"Abu Mazen (Abbas) believes that this initiative is the best mechanism for resolving the conflict and he thinks that the Israeli public and political system have not been given a chance to get to know the details of the plan. He therefore decided to approach the public directly," explained Tibi.



Sharon Roffe-Ofir contributed to the report

Livni: No such thing as a partial lull

Kadima chairwoman addresses rocket barrages from Gaza at party meeting, rejects terminology of partial truce. Fellow Kadima Minister Dichter says Israel must move beyond short-sighted reactions to attacks, adopt policies that will deter terror groups
Attila Somfalvi today it isn't there." Livni stressed that Israel sees Hamas as solely responsible for the situation Over 10 rockets have been fired from northern Gaza towards Israel on Monday, some just as Defense Minister Ehud Barak left the area after paying a visit to the frequently bombarded town of Sderot along with British Foreign Minister David Miliband.


Minister Livni confirmed she has been briefed on the burgeoning economic plan being drafted by the Finance Ministry, and said she had asked Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On to include funds for the second phase of rocket fortification for Gaza-vicinity communities in the new economic plan.


Livni also addressed the assassination of mobster Yakov Alperon in Tel Aviv earlier in the day, calling it unacceptable. "As far as we are concerned, it is just as important to go after criminal gangs as it is to go after foreign threats," she said.


Fellow Kadima official, Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter, also discussed the attacks from Gaza at the meeting. Israel "must avoid looking for small solutions. Killing two or three terrorists is a solution that just brings rockets, the response to Hamas' attacks must be planned," he said.


Dichter added that the IDF and Shin Bet must propose solutions that will have a deterrent effect. "Flipping off the (electricity) switch and closing the crossings isn't going to stop terror," he said.

s Hamas Committed to the Ceasefire?

Yoram Cohen

Last week, Israeli forces entered Gaza, destroyed an underground border tunnel, and battled Hamas fighters, leaving several militants dead. In response, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fired around eighty rockets into southern Israel, including the Israeli city of Ashkelon. Despite this breach of the tahdiya, or ceasefire, both Hamas and Israeli leaders have stressed their desire to deescalate the situation. But considering Hamas's history of violence against Israel, the organization's commitment to the tahdiya is open to serious question. Background

On June 19, 2008, Israel and Hamas began observing an Egyptian-mediated ceasefire, which was intended to last six months with an option to extend. Hamas's support for this lull, however, is not a sign that it favors long-term peace with Israel. Rather, Hamas recognizes the painful results provoked by its continuing attacks on Israel. The organization is concerned that a large-scale incursion by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would prevent it from dealing with its complex set of challenges and also endanger its main achievement, the complete control of the Gaza Strip. The truce promotes Hamas's interests by buying time to advance the movement's short- and long-term goals.

Hamas Goals

Hamas's primary long-term goal is the liberation of historic Palestine "from the sea to the river" and the foundation of an independent state based on sharia, or Islamic religious law. This would require the destruction of the state of Israel and control over Palestinian institutions, including the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Palestine Liberation Organization, and all of the Palestinian Diaspora groups. To this end, Hamas seeks a powerful modern army to continue its armed struggle against Israel, a goal that is aided by Israel's enemies, Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.

In the short term, Hamas faces a number of economic, political, and security challenges. Its primary economic interest is to end its dependence on Israel's infrastructure and economy by permanently opening crossings into the Gaza Strip, particularly the Rafah crossing into Egypt. This would increase investment in the Gaza economy, as well as the movement of goods. An economic improvement in the Strip would also reduce public criticism of the Hamas military activities that have led to severe Israeli reprisals.

Hamas's immediate security interest is the consolidation of its control over Gaza. This requires avoiding or eliminating both external and internal challenges to its sovereignty. It needs to protect its leaders from Israeli targeted attacks, and to halt IDF operations inside Gaza, which would damage Hamas's strength and potentially lead to its downfall. In an effort to deter future Israeli military action, Hamas is also upgrading its military capabilities so it can exact a heavy toll inside Israel should future fighting break out.

Mixed Results for Hamas

In general, Hamas has observed the ceasefire; the number of attacks and rocket launches has decreased significantly, and Hamas has prevented other Gaza militant organizations from striking Israel. Nonetheless, prior to last week's spasm of violence, Palestinian organizations in Gaza had violated the tahdiya more than forty times by launching rockets and mortar shells and by detonating improvised explosive devices against IDF patrols along the fence separating Israel from Gaza.

Although Hamas has not achieved its main economic goals -- an agreement on permanent border crossings and an improved economic situation in Gaza -- its leaders are relatively satisfied with current political developments. Hamas seeks legitimacy in the West and the Arab world, and after years of tattered relations with Jordan, Hamas representatives were recently invited to speak with the Jordanian government. In its Egyptian-sponsored dialogue with rival Fatah, Hamas continues to adopt a tough and uncompromising stance, but its assumptions about Fatah's weakness may soon end if Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is able to extend his term -- and consequently Fatah's legitimacy -- until January 2010. In addition, negotiations for the release of Hamas prisoners are still ongoing (using kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as leverage), and Hamas was able to conduct secret internal elections in August for the movement's institutions and to elect the senior members for the Shura Council, the policymaking body in Gaza.

Security developments offer even more optimism for Hamas leaders. IDF units have halted all operations inside Gaza, which bolsters Hamas's claim to sovereignty in the area. This halt also allows Hamas leaders and commanders to move freely without fear of a targeted Israeli strike. As expected, Hamas is using the lull to strengthen its military capabilities. The organization has smuggled explosives, antitank missiles, rifles, and high-tech equipment via the Egyptian border, enabling Hamas to complete its defensive plans as well as improve its use of Qassam rockets. Also, the lull has allowed Hamas to deal successfully with internal security challenges. Hamas fighters laid siege to rival clan strongholds, resulting in a high number of casualties, including women and children. Although its use of excessive force damaged its public image, Hamas achieved two important goals: a clear resolution as to who was in charge in Gaza and a warning to other Palestinian elements considering a challenge to Hamas's power.

Hamas's continuing source of frustration on the security front, however, is its vulnerability outside Gaza. The organization's military infrastructure is weak in the West Bank, and it has difficulty executing major attacks inside Israel. Israeli and PA arrests of Hamas activists, along with disruption of its social institutions, also frustrate Hamas ambitions.

Conclusion

Although certain Hamas officials (particularly in the military wing) want to abandon the ceasefire altogether, most of its leaders will most likely continue to emphasize the truce's benefits and maintain the agreement for the near term, since it allows Hamas to make progress on other goals. Hamas leaders, however, will continue to encourage and assist the group's West Bank elements in executing large-scale attacks inside Israel. Hamas will also threaten or attack senior PA officials who act against the group's infrastructure in the West Bank, in an effort to curb this activity. Hamas may even permit "unidentified cells" in Gaza to engage in attacks that it considers "legitimate" during the lull. For instance, Hamas may use its underground tunnel network to kidnap Israeli soldiers or send operatives into Egypt to infiltrate Israel from the Sinai.

Hamas will also continue to discuss reconciliation with Fatah while maintaining a tough negotiating stance. The group will increase its criticism of Abbas in an effort to undermine his public legitimacy and to create public pressure for him to end his term as scheduled in January 2009. If successful, Hamas will insist that the president's duties and powers be transferred to a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council until new presidential elections are held. There is no evidence, however, that the PA will accept this demand.

Yoram Cohen is currently a visiting fellow at The Washington Institute. Previously, he held a variety of positions in the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), serving until recently as the organization's deputy director.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036
Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · Contact · Privacy Policy · © 2008 All rights reserved

Our Sons Are Still in Gaza

Yehudit Tayar

(IsraelNN.com) Our sons are fighting in Gaza. Our sons - the sons of families who were brutally uprooted from their homes, jobs, communities, synagogues and cemeteries - are fighting in Gaza.

Under the missiles, under the fire of the same terrorists who have been strengthened by the destruction of Gush Katif, our sons are fighting. Yes, they are fighting. Can anyone out there explain why they are endangering themselves now? Back when we had a flourishing group of communities and our sons fought there, it was justifiable; we were living there, and to fight for your home, your family and your country is understandable. But now there are no families of ours left, there are no homes left, and the country.... What exactly does this country want us there for anyway?

While missiles from Gaza fall on Israeli cities and communities, Israel continues to supply fuel and "humanitarian aid" to the residents of Gaza; yet, Israel does not supply any security solution for the citizens of Israel who live around Gaza and repeatedly are attacked. Just as no solution was provided for our families, uprooted from Gush Katif and languishing still with no permanent homes or communities. And, for many, there are no jobs, and there is no solution for the residents of what is termed "around Gaza."

Those same residents "around Gaza" were out on the road supporting the destruction of Gush Katif, especially on Fridays, while we in Gush Katif faced both physical attacks from the terrorist enemies (no, they are not partners) and psychological attacks. While the government of Israel planned the ruthless destruction of that Garden of Eden, Gush Katif, which had turned empty sand dunes into beautiful communities and successful agricultural development, those residents of the communities around Gaza demonstrated in support of the plan to throw us out and destroy all that we had done there.

They had no feelings for either the people living there, nor for the reality of the situation and what would happen in this region after the destruction of Gush Katif. There were many who called out to stop sacrificing our soldiers for the few families living there, to stop our sons from fighting in Gaza.

What do these same blind people say now? What do they say now that our sons are back inside standing on the beloved sands of our homes there, over the desecration of our communities, synagogues and again fighting the same terrorists? Or perhaps not the same terrorists actually, for today's terrorists have witnessed the decisions of a Jewish government to destroy Jewish towns, while trying to run away from the terror in Gaza.

These murderous terrorists have every reason to believe that Israel will not stop running away from the terror. Rather, they think if they continue to attack other areas such as Sderot, Ashkelon, Netiv Ha'asara, Sa'ad, Alumim, Or Haner and other Jewish communities around Gaza, then Israel will run away from them also.

And our sons are fighting in Gaza; these brave young lions who lived in Gush Katif and witnessed the destruction of their families' homes and communities, who at the time wept as they were confronted by soldiers wearing the same uniform that they wear today, and saw soldiers of the same army who, instead of fighting the terrorists, were dragging them away from their memories, from their friends, schools and homes.

Our sons are fighting in Gaza because the government of Israel has decided not to resolve the terror and to teach the terrorists - whether you call them Hamas, PLO or any other name - that Jews do not run away from terror. The policy of the governments of Israel should be that we Jews negate these reasons that the terrorists are attacking. First and foremost, we protect the lives of the citizens and soldiers of Israel, and then teach the terrorists that Jewish blood is not expendable.

Our sons are fighting in Gaza and it is accepted as normal for them today to endanger their lives. It is taken for granted that they should be fighting there to protect Israel. But why now and not when we were living there?

For those immoral politicians who care more about world opinion and ratings by the media than for the precious lives of the citizens and soldiers of Israel - hang your heads in shame - and stop sacrificing our lives and future. If our sons have to fight in Gaza, in Lebanon or any other place that endangers us, then give us a justified reason - stop negotiating with those who wish to destroy us, and stand firm on Jewish rights.

Our sons are fighting in Gaza and our nation's son Gilad Shalit is still held there; while the government of Israel is criminally responsible for both, and it is also morally responsible for both, and should be taking action to resolve this.

American Jewry's challenge

manfred gerstenfeld , THE JERUSALEM POST

What are the prospects for American Jewry? The United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Jerusalem is an opportune time to address challenges facing the larger concentration of Jews in the world. Since the shock of the early 1990s, when the first National Jewish Population Survey confronted us with the true extent of assimilation, "continuity" has become a key term in Jewish discourse. Thus concern about the number of those who identify themselves as Jews has increased. Ira Sheskin, who heads the Jewish democracy project at the University of Miami, says the most probable number of American Jews is between 6 million and 6.4 million, and will remain stable for some time yet before declining. The general American population, however, will likely double over the coming decades. To maintain the Jewish community's influence, its efforts at building coalitions with other groups will have to be strengthened.

Regarding Jewish identity, one first has to understand what this means. Sociologist Steven Cohen observes that the word "identity" is used for lack of a better term for the complex of Jewish belief, behavior and belonging. He remarks that for most American Jews, being Jewish no longer entails a set of obligations, but has become an aesthetic understanding, and thus "being Jewish" has increasingly become a matter of choice. David Ellenson, who heads the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Research, illustrates this by explaining that the Reform Movement would not have decided to accept patrilineal descent if there weren't so many intermarried Jews who want to remain part of the Jewish community.

EDUCATION REMAINS a central element. Among an estimated one million Jewish children of elementary and high school age, about 20 percent are enrolled in Jewish day schools. At any given time, more than another 20% get some Jewish education in after-school programs.

Perhaps the greatest recent successes have been in informal education. Summer camps and youth movements play a significant role for some children. The birthright israel program, based on a 10-day visit to Israel, has become the largest Jewish education program ever. About 150,000 young North American Jews have participated so far. Research shows that, due to the visit, attitudes toward Judaism have changed, but without altering Jewish behavior. This remains a major challenge which the organizers of birthright israel intend to confront.

As attacks on Israel and the Jews have increased in the new millennium, the "commonality of fate" has again come to the fore as a binding element. "One people, one destiny" - the motto of the current GA - expresses an increasing understanding of this. Participation in New York's annual Parade for Israel is another sign. Teaching about Israel in Jewish day schools, however, is still falling short. Thus even the most committed Jewish youngsters are often unprepared for the anti-Israelism which has become a plague in American universities. The development of Israel studies on elite campuses provides only a partial answer.

The aging of the Jewish population leads to challenges beyond the financial. Rela Mintz Geffen, former president of Baltimore Hebrew University, points out that for the first time in American Jewish history there is a significant number of four-generation families. This brings a need for much more attention to the role of grandparents - a subject neglected in sociological studies of American society at large.

The current financial crisis may acerbate economic problems, beyond a decline in Jewish philanthropy and an increase in the number of poor. Already, sending children to Jewish day schools is a heavy financial burden as tuition costs continue to increase faster than income.

Synagogue movements remain by far the largest organizations in Jewish life. Due to society's general polarization, those in the middle risk being squeezed. This is particularly true for the Conservative movement, but modern Orthodoxy is also under pressure due to the shift toward the right among segments of its younger generation. This is partly the result of their studies in Israeli yeshivot.

Another important trend is that of women becoming more dominant in non-Orthodox religious life, while men are marginalized. Sylvia Barack-Fishman and Daniel Parmer of Brandeis University, who have investigated this phenomenon, have suggested various policies to counteract the trend.

This multitude of challenges puts great stress on Jewish leadership at a time when, as Jack Wertheimer, former provost of the Jewish Theological Seminary, says, there are no longer any universalized leaders among American Jewry. While several leaders are effective heads of their organizations, they rarely rise above their own sphere to influence the broader issues affecting Jewish life. In a dynamic and fragmenting world, that is perhaps the largest single challenge.

The writer is chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Among his books is American Jewry's Challenge, Conversations Confronting the Twenty First Century.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404738772&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Ayalon to resign from Labor

Minister summons his supporters, stresses departure tied to Labor Chairman Barak's conduct. With the official press conference set for Sunday, it still remains unclear where his political future lies
Attila Somfalvi

Minister Ami Ayalon will announce his resignation from the Labor party on Sunday, in yet another blow to the party's chairman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak. "A party with no ideals, no standards, no rules, that changes every morning - that's not a party you should be in," Ayalon told several dozen of his supporters on Saturday evening and informed them he would not continue with Labor



Ayalon is expected to convene a press conference in Tel Aviv to make the formal announcement, though it remains unclear which party he intends to tie his political destiny to in the upcoming general elections.



"There are four candidates in Labor who see themselves as future party leaders. Now they will go around saying how good Barak is, but in four months they will start calling for him to go home. I'm not willing to play that game," said the minister, who does not hold a portfolio, at the Sedot Yam rally.



At Sunday's press conference he is expected to say he no longer sees himself in the party under Barak.



At present time Ayalon is collaborating with Meimad's chairman, MK Michael Melchior, but it is not clear if the two will run together as part of Meimad – which currently has an agreement with Labor.



Officials close to Ayalon said he was unlikely to choose the Meimad route.



Ayalon has also recently held intensive talks with Meretz Chairman Chaim Oron, but the negotiations

appear to have become stagnated. Ayalon reportedly demanded he be assured the second-highest ranking on the party's list, after Oron himself. But the Meretz chairman rejected the demand.



However sources within Meretz close to the efforts currently being undertaken to form a new left-wing party told Ynet they believed that "eventually, we can expect to the connection with Ami Ayalon working out."



Ayalon is also said to have held talks with former MK Ephraim Sneh, who heads the newly-formed 'Strong Israel' party. He has also held talks with Amir Goldenstein, advisor to Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni.

Sderot resident appeals to Obama

Pinchas Amar asks President-Elect to keep his promise from July to protect town residents from rocket fire. In Ashkelon, school canceled and police ask residents not to hold a protest because of safety concerns
Shmulik Hadad

A few months ago, US President-Elect Barack Obama stood in the Sderot home of Pinchas Amar and promised an end to rocket fire. Friday, after one of the Qassams among the repeated rocket barrages landed near his home, the resident of the beleaguered Negev town sent out an appeal to the new American leader. "Obama promised me, in my home, in front of the media, that he wouldn't allow the rocket fire to continue. My message to him is: Keep your promise," said Amar, who, along with his wife, was injured in earlier rocket fire.


"I was barely able to reach the secure room," said Amar, who was recently restricted to a wheelchair after falling off a ladder. "I heard a scary blast… I hope Shabbat will be quiet."


Residents of a nearby kibbutz, also the victim of a rocket attack, expressed similar sentiments. "It was really scary… and the worst part is that they've only recently started building secure rooms here, meaning that not all of the rooms are completed or accessible," they said.


Meanwhile, slightly to the north, the Ashkelon school board announced that school would be canceled on Sunday. Eli Shato, the head of the school board said, "We told parents that we're not waiting and are canceling school. There's not a single fortified structure and I'm not willing to endanger the children."


Also in Ashkelon, local resident Ran Yedai had attempted unsuccessfully to form a security staff during the ceasefire. Friday, he said, he had received several phone calls from other concerned citizens interested in taking part in such efforts, pursuant to the rocket attacks.


Another city resident, Ronen Alush, wanted to stage a protest against government inaction on the issue of the rocket attacks on the Negev but was asked by police to refrain from doing this, so as not to endanger residents.

Toward a New Negotiating Paradigm

Mohammad Yaghi November, 2008
Arab Reform Bulletin
http://carnegieendowment.org/arb/?fa=show&article=22397

As the new U.S. president considers whether to try to revive the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, he must understand the new realities shaping the conflict. It is well-known that Palestinians are divided into two major camps, Fatah and Hamas, who contest which truly represents the Palestinian people and diverge over strategy and tactics. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), dominated by Fatah, rules the West Bank, believes in negotiations, and sees the establishment of a Palestinian state on the lands occupied in 1967 as an end to the conflict. But it also can barely preserve itself in power despite enormous financial support from the international community. Hamas, on the other hand, controls Gaza and enjoys support among many Palestinians in the diaspora. It relies on armed resistance and terrorism and says it would be willing to reach a long-term truce with Israel but that ultimately Palestinians must rule all of historic Palestine.
What the new U.S. president needs to understand about the rift between Fatah and Hamas is that it does not matter whether Washington supports or rejects reconciliation efforts. Regardless of the U.S. position, this contention among brothers will continue; even if they reach an accord, it will not last. Other factors adding to this gloomy picture are the fact that Israel continues to construct new settlements and expands older ones in the West Bank and that it has built a security wall inside the presumed borders of the future Palestinian state.

Conscious of these developments, many observers now say that a two- state solution is no longer possible. But this is not necessarily true; what has collapsed is not the principle of sharing the land, but the idea that the way to reach this goal is through bilateral negotiations between the PLO and Israel.

Indeed, the days when the PLO could claim to represent all Palestinians are over. Now it lacks both the mandate to sign an accord with Israel and the capacity to implement one. Moreover, Israel has made progress on security issues a precondition for compromise over permanent status issues. But eight years of mutual violence since the failure of negotiations in 2000 makes it hard to believe the PLO will ever fulfill this condition.
Rather than continuing the process begun at Annapolis, the new U.S. administration needs to consider a two track strategy. The first track would aim to empower moderate Palestinians to expand their base of support in order to pave the road for peace and to ensure that an agreement can be implemented. This can be achieved by improving the economic situation of Palestinians, removing the checkpoints that hamper movement, insisting on reform of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, freezing construction of Israeli settlements, and prolonging the Israeli-Hamas truce in Gaza.

The second track should establish a new paradigm for negotiations in which the Arab countries together would negotiate with Israel to solve the Palestinian question as part of the wider conflict between Israel on one side, and Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians on the other. In contemplating such a dramatically different approach, it is legitimate to ask on which basis negotiations would proceed, why this new approach would be more promising than the bilateral talks begun at Annapolis, what would be in it for Israel, and whether the Arab countries and Palestinians would support it.

Regarding the basis for such negotiations, the idea would not be to convince the Arabs to drop their peace initiative of March 2002 or to press Israel to accept it, but rather to begin from the principles that both sides agreed to at the 1991 Madrid conference: land for peace and UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. Under this new approach, Arab countries would substitute for the weak and divided Palestinians. They would bargain collectively, through the League of Arab States, with Israel to reach a solution that included security arrangements for all parties. An agreement on Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees reached with all Arab states would be stronger and more durable than one reached with Palestinians alone. Such an accord would put Hamas and Hizbollah on the defensive; their choices would be to torpedo the agreement and confront all Arab countries including their ally Syria, or live with it and transform themselves into unarmed political parties.

For its part, Israel would reap several benefits. It would obtain security arrangements in which it could have confidence and normalize its relations with all Arab countries. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that Israel would obtain these advantages in the context of an agreement with Arab states on Palestinian issues that would be along the lines of the principles Israel and the PLO have agreed on in past talks including on sensitive issues such as territorial swaps, refugee issues, and shared sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The Arab countries have vital interests in resolving the conflict with Israel. Iran’s increased influence in the Middle East and the rising power of Hamas in Palestine and Hizbollah in Lebanon have made them more vulnerable to domestic pressure from Islamic movements that use the conflict to advance their political ambitions. Still, Arab states might shy away from direct negotiations with Israel, preferring to hide behind the Palestinians when it comes to making the necessary compromises for peace. At the time of the 1991 Madrid conference, Syria and Lebanon were against separating the negotiations tracks but much has changed since then. Perhaps the most serious obstacle would be getting Palestinians to sacrifice their independence and accept a kind of trusteeship from the Arab League.

It remains for the United States to examine the advantages of such an approach and encourage Israel, Palestinians, and Arab states to endorse it. In this context, the new U.S. president should keep in mind that the Arabs already implicitly proposed this approach via their peace initiative five years ago, and recently Israeli Labor Party leader Ehud Barak has stated that he and Kadima Party leader Tzipi Livni are considering responding positively to that initiative.

Obama's Pal Rashidi Was PLO Terror Spokesman

http://www.iris.org.il/blog/

A number of blogs and commentators have exposed the deep connections between Barack Obama, William Ayers and "Palestinian sympathizer" Rashid Khalidi.

But here's the smoking gun. It turns out that Rashid Khalidi was much more than a "sympathizer." He was a paid spokesman for the PLO in 1978, when it was exclusively an unabashed terrorist organization, and was of course categorized as such by the United States. The evidence appears in none other than the New York Times. So why don't others have the story? 1978 archives are not searchable because they are only available on microfilm. It took an intrepid IRIS associate to dig up the article:



If the Israelis had any brains they could neutralize Palestinian irredentism just by giving back the West Bank," asserted Rashid Khalidy, an American-educated Palestinian who teaches political science at the American University of Beirut and also works for the P.L.O. "It would split us."

As detailed in Campus Watch Rashid Khalidi is trying to weasel out of having worked for the PLO:

Mr. Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."

Khalidi and Khalidy are clearly the same person. According to the Columbia Spectator, he was a professor at the American University in Beirut before his first stint at Columbia:

Khalidi came to Columbia in 1985 after teaching at Lebanese University and American University in Beirut. He has taught in political science and history departments.

According to the New York Times, the Columbia Khalidi seems to have known Arafat from that time period:

Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor at the University of Chicago who has known Mr. Arafat since the 1970's, said he visited Mr. Arafat recently and found him battered not only by the Israeli siege that confined him to his headquarters here but also by the recent calls for reform.

Khalidi should come clean about his terrorist connections. Here is what Khalidi's employer did a few weeks after his Times interview:

On March 11, 1978 eleven terrorists, again coming from Lebanon with Zoadic rubber commando dinghies, landed at the beach of Kibbutz Ma?agan Michael. They killed an American photographer and a taxi driver and hijacked a bus, whose passengers, including many children, were on a day-trip to the north. The hijackers forced the driver to return to Tel Aviv. Driving on the coastal highway, the terrorists fired on passing cars from the bus.

When the bus approached a blockade set up by the police at an entrance to Tel Aviv, a shootout took place. The terrorists left the bus and fired missiles. The bus burst into flames and most of the passengers were either burned alive or killed by terrorist gunfire.

The massacre left 35 innocent people dead and 100 injured. The terrorists were identified as belonging to Fatah; nine were killed and two captured.



This would explain why Obama mentor William Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian terrorist who assassinated Robert Kennedy for his pro-Israel views. Ayers was very close to Khalidi and Obama, and was in attendance at the 2003 party in Khalidi's honor in which Obama toasted the PLO spokesman. The Los Angeles Times, which has been accused of partisan support of Obama, is refusing to release the tape of the event. It is alleged that Obama denounced Israel at the event in anti-Semitic terms.

(Hat tip: Michael S.)